quote:
This is the bottom line when science of today is attempted to be applied to the future, or even far past!
This is because not all possible scenarios for the history of the earth are consistent with what we observe today. For example, the special creation of the earth only 6000 years ago and a global flook about 4500 years ago would suggest we should observe certain things about the world today. These observations are not seen, and, in fact, contradictory observations are seen, and so special creation 6000 years ago and a subsequent global flood can be ruled out as reasonable hypotheses.
-
quote:
This involves making assumptions about the past, of course. However, the remarkable thing is that it leads to a very consistent history of the earth and the universe.
So what? I have another. Absolutely.
If you are speaking of a literal reading of Genesis, then you don't. A literal reading of Genesis contradicts what we see in the world today. A literal reading of Genesis would suggest that we should see certain things today in the geologic and archaeologic record that we do not see.
-
quote:
There is no reason to expect that any assumption about the past will not be supported by some evidence and contradicted by other evidence.
Finish the line of thought here, let's be honest. 'There is no reason to expect that any assumption about the past will be supported by some evidence and contradicted by other evidence'
A statement, if true, does not imply that its converse is true. There is good reason to expect that an
arbitrary assumption about the past will contradicted by evidence: the evidence exists in many different fields of science, and is collected and examined under many different methodologies. It would be quite remarkable that an incorrect assumption about the past will be supported by so many varied lines of evidence.
-
quote:
You can assume otherwise, but you also need to prove it.
That the assumptions lead to a consistent history of the world that is supported by physical evidence is all the "proof" that we need. This is all that is required. Newton did not have to do experiments on every single planet in the universe to "prove" his universal law of gravity. Merely pointing out the evidence that was accessible to him and his contemporaries was enough for its acceptance.
-
quote:
Cause what we see is exactly what is expected as well if the spiritual was seperated from the physical.
Actually, I don't see how any kind of "spriritual" explains the consistency of radiometric dating, why we see stars that are farther than 6000 light years away, or why all known species can be classified in a hierarchical classification scheme.
Of course,
you can assume otherwise. You can assume that people can really fly by jumping off of buildings, and you can claim that it only
seems otherwise because of "the spiritual was seperated from the physical", but I wouldn't recommend putting this assumption in practice.
It would be much safer to put your assumption about the history of the world into practice. Put forward a very detailed scenario of the history of the world, as well as how the detailed evidence in geology, biology, and astronomy that we actually see is produced in the course of your history.
It'll be big book, probably several volumes, but should be worth reading.
"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)
™ Version 4.2
